You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Dry-Cleaning Chemical, PERC, Is Not “Petroleum” Within the Meaning of the Navigation Law—Plaintiff’s Suit for Clean-Up of PERC Under the Navigation Law Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined the Navigation Law did not confer upon plaintiff a private right of action to sue for clean-up of PERC, a chemical used in dry cleaning.  Plaintiff is the owner of a shopping plaza and sued the estate of the owner a of dry cleaning business that was located in the plaza after PERC was found in the soil. The Navigation Law provides a private right of action to sue for the clean-up of “petroleum.” Although PERC is derived from petroleum, the court held PERC does not constitute petroleum within the meaning of the Navigation Law:

Essentially, plaintiff argues that this finding that PERC is petroleum derived is sufficient to support imposition of liability under the Navigation Law. This would constitute a novel expansion of the law; plaintiff does not cite to, nor can we find, any case in which PERC has been deemed to constitute petroleum under the Navigation Law. At least two other courts have come to the opposite conclusion, finding that PERC does not constitute petroleum under the Navigation Law … . As defendant argues, the vast and diverse range of products and substances derived from petroleum — many of which pose none of the same dangers as petroleum itself — would make a per se rule imposing liability for the discharge of any petroleum-derived substance unworkable. Accordingly, we find no error in Supreme Court’s determination that PERC is not petroleum as defined under Navigation Law article 12 … . Fairview Plaza, Inc. v Estate of Peter J. Rigos, 2015 NY Slip Op 04901, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Industrial Code Provision Which Prohibits Allowing an Employee to Use an “Elevated Working Surface Which Is In a Slippery Condition” Does Not Apply to Snow Removal/The Injury—a Slip and Fall While Shoveling Snow—Was Caused by “An Integral Part of the Work”

Plaintiff was directed to remove snow from the work site and slipped and fell in the process. The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action because the cited industrial code provision (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)) did not apply to the work plaintiff was assigned. The industrial code prohibited allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, where the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed (here, removal of the slippery condition) that industrial code provision does not apply:

… [P]laintiff cites 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), which prohibits an employer from allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, when the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed, 12 NYCRR 23.1-7 does not apply … . In other words, liability does not attach when the injury is caused by the “‘very condition [a plaintiff] was charged with removing'” … . … Here, plaintiff was injured due to the condition that he was specifically charged with removing … , Barros v Bette & Cring, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04910, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

,

Townhouse Residents, Members of a Community Homeowners’ Association, Entered an Implied Contract to Pay a Proportionate Share of the Fees for Authorized and Necessary Services in Connection with the Maintenance of the Townhouse Facilities

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants (townhouse residents) had entered an implied contract to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining the facilities. The defendants had refused to pay membership fees after a dispute with other residents arose.  The Third Department, applying the “business judgment rule,” determined the fees assessed by the plaintiffs were for authorized and necessary services provided by the plaintiff:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has made clear that an implied contract for a community homeowners’ association “includes the obligation to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining . . . facilities and services, not merely the reasonable value of those actually used by any particular resident” … . We review plaintiff’s action in undertaking such expenditures under the business judgment rule, which, in the absence of “claims of fraud, self-dealing, unconscionability, or other misconduct,” is limited to an inquiry of “whether the action was authorized and whether it was taken in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the corporation” … . Bluff Point Townhouse Owners Assn., Inc. v Kapsokefalos, 2015 NY Slip Op 04905, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

, ,

Prior Owner of a Nursing Home Did Not Have Standing to Seek Payments from Medicaid for the Period During His Ownership—Only the Current Owner/Operator of the Nursing Home Had Standing

The Third Department determined petitioner, the former owner of a nursing home, did not have standing to seek payments from Medicaid for the period before petitioner sold the nursing home.  Only the current operator of the nursing home has standing to seek Medicaid payments. The court noted that petitioner had protected his interest in the payments by contract with the new owner of the nursing home:

Standing requires a party to demonstrate both an injury-in-fact and an injury falling “within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … . Petitioner has clearly demonstrated an injury-in-fact particularly since it initiated the rate appeal while it was still the owner/operator … . The more difficult question is whether petitioner meets the zone of interests component as a former owner/operator. Our review shows that the governing statute and regulations contemplate the payment of Medicaid reimbursement to the current provider of medical services or the current operator of a nursing home facility. Specifically, Social Services Law § 367-a (1) (a) mandates that all payments “shall be made to the person, institution, state department or agency or municipality supplying such medical assistance” and expressly prohibits the assignment of a reimbursement claim to a third party. This legislation was designed to “relieve DOH from the potential liability and increased administrative burdens involved in such assignments” (Legislative Mem, 1971 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 2419-2420…). Correspondingly, nursing home facilities qualify for Medicaid payments provided that they possess a valid operating certificate issued by the Commissioner (see Public Health Law § 2801 [2], [3], [4] [b]; 10 NYCRR 86-2.1 [a]). An operating certificate “shall only be used by the established operator for the designated site or operation” (10 NYCRR 401.2 [b]). When, as here, the owner/operator sells a facility to a party who intends to continue operating the facility, it may transfer the operating certificate to the new operator only upon approval of the Public Health Council (see 10 NYCRR 401.3 [c]). Read together, these provisions establish that it is the current operator of a nursing home facility — i.e., the holder of a valid operating certificate — that is entitled to receive Medicaid payments and, thus, is the protected party within the statutory zone of interest. Matter of Park Manor Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 04909, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

, , ,

The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)

Plaintiff was injured when a piece of lumber fell off an open truck owned by the county.  Plaintiff was driving her vehicle when the debris came off the county truck and struck her in the head. The county truck was being used to transport debris in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. The Third Department determined that, by transporting unsecured debris in an open truck, the county had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a (1) and, therefore, the county was negligent per se.  The court interpreted Vehicle and Traffic Law 380-a to mean that a prima facie case of a violation of the statute is made out by proof a load in an open truck was not covered. Once that showing is made, the owner of the truck will not be deemed to have violated the statute, despite the lack of a cover, if the owner can show the load was secure such that no cover was required. No such showing was possible here.  The court rejected the county’s argument that the emergency-related immunity conferred by the Executive Law applied here. The court noted the purpose of the Executive-Law immunity is to allow the government to make decisions during an emergency—which roads to clear first, for instance—without fear of liability, but the “emergency” immunity did not insulate the county from liability for its negligence in every context:

Executive Law § 25 (1) provides that, “[u]pon the threat or occurrence of a disaster, the chief executive of any political subdivision is hereby authorized and empowered to and shall use any and all facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel and other resources of his [or her] political subdivision in such manner as may be necessary or appropriate to cope with the disaster or any emergency resulting therefrom.” To be sure, this statute, which vests a political subdivision’s chief executive “with the power to respond to a local disaster or the immediate threat of a disaster, . . . reflects an awareness by the . . . Legislature that in emergency situations prompt and immediate unilateral action is necessary to preserve and protect life and property” … . Consistent with that awareness, the statute further provides, as noted previously, that “[a] political subdivision shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of any officer or employee in carrying out the provisions of this section” (Executive Law § 25 [5]).

In our view, the scope of the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 is clear. When faced with a disaster, a political subdivision’s chief executive may, for example, decide where to set up a makeshift hospital or aid station, prioritize and determine which streets to clear or allocate supplies and personnel as he or she sees fit, and such discretionary determinations, in turn, will not serve as a basis upon which to expose the political subdivision to liability. In other words, a disgruntled homeowner who is confronted with a flooded basement and is living on an impassable residential street cannot seek to hold a locality liable for damages simply because its chief executive deemed it more important to first clear a path to the local hospital or to pump out the holding cells in the local police station. That said, the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, to our analysis, grant a political subdivision carte blanche to perform a discretionary function in any manner that it sees fit — particularly in a manner that poses a danger to the traveling public. Here, a valid — and discretionary — determination may well have been made that the removal of storm debris from, among other locations, the DPW garage was a priority and, further, that transporting such debris in open containers was the most efficient and expeditious way to do so. The discretionary nature of these broad, resource-based decisions, however, did not obviate the need for defendants to comply with the provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1) in terms of the actual transport of such debris. As the immunity conferred by Executive Law § 25 (5) does not, in our view, extend to the particular facts of this case, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. …

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 380-a (1), which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful to operate on any public highway any open truck or trailer being utilized for the transportation of any loose substances, unless said truck or trailer has a cover, tarpaulin or other device of a type and specification . . . which completely closes in the opening on. . . said truck or trailer while said truck or trailer shall be so operated, so as to prevent the falling of any such substances therefrom. However, if the load is arranged so that no loose substance can fall from or blow out of such truck, the covering is not necessary.” * * *

In our view, in order to discharge her initial burden on her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff need only have shown that defendants failed to utilize a cover; at that point, the burden shifted to defendants to demonstrate that no statutory violation actually occurred because the load was arranged in such a manner that no cover was necessary. To hold otherwise would place a nearly insurmountable burden upon plaintiff, as the manner in which the container was loaded and the contents were arranged inevitably lies within the exclusive knowledge of defendants… . Pierce v Hickey, 2015 NY Slip Op 04914, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Alternating Custody on a Yearly Basis, Requiring the Child to Attend Two Schools, Was Not In the Child’s Best Interests

The Third Department determined that alternating physical custody between the parents on a yearly basis, requiring the child to attend two different schools, was not in the child’s best interests:

Here, based on the totality of the circumstances, we disagree with Family Court’s determination, and find that alternating physical custody on a yearly basis is not in the child’s best interests … . Although presenting differing arguments, both parents, as well as the attorney for the child, argue against this disposition on this appeal. As a result of the alternating school schedule in place previously, the child has missed activities and field trips at both schools, and this can only be expected to increase. The superintendent of the school district in Canada where the child’s school is located opined in a letter that the child’s social, emotional and academic development would best be served by attending only one school, and we agree. Despite the hardships and separation necessarily arising from the physical distance between the two parents, it is the child’s own stability that takes increasing precedence as he ages … . Matter of Nelson v Perea, 2014 NY Slip Op 04091, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Father’s Status as an Untreated Sex Offender, Together with Mother’s Willingness to Leave the Children with Father Unsupervised, Was Sufficient to Establish Neglect

The Third Department determined father’s status as an untreated sex offender, together with mother’s willingness to leave the children with father unsupervised, was sufficient to establish neglect:

Petitioner bore the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, “first that the children’s ‘physical, mental or emotional condition [was]; impaired or [was]; in imminent danger of becoming impaired’ and, second, that such harm was directly attributable to a failure on the part of [the]; respondent ‘to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in providing the [children]; with proper supervision or guardianship'” … . While actual harm is not required, the imminent danger of harm “must be near or impending, not merely possible” … . “[A];dditionally, there must be a link or causal connection between the basis for the neglect petition and the circumstances that allegedly produce the child’s impairment or imminent danger of impairment” … .

…[W]e agree with Family Court that the evidence submitted regarding the facts underlying the father’s convictions for abusing young children in his care is sufficient to distinguish this case from Matter of Afton C. (James C.) (17 NY3d at 11…)..

In addition, petitioner also introduced evidence that the father did not complete the sex offender treatment he had been ordered to undergo after his first conviction, that he did not participate in any sex offender treatment while in prison for his second conviction and that the individual counseling he received from a minister while in prison and upon his release did not qualify as appropriate sex offender treatment. Matter of Lillian SS, 2014 NY Slip Op 04101, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

,

Delay In Bringing Action Seeking to Stop a Development Project Which Had Been Proceeding for Years Precluded the Grant of a Preliminary Injunction, Despite the Apparent Legitimate Nature of the Allegations

The Third Department determined a preliminary injunction halting a development project which had been proceeding for years should not have been granted.  The development project started with the annexation of land by the village, for which no referendum had been held.  The action brought by the plaintiffs alleged the failure to hold the referendum violated local law and further alleged a conflict of interest arising from the mayor’s acquisition of project property  In spite of the apparently legitimate grounds for the action, the Third Department determined the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed because the action was brought so late and the project, consequently, had progressed so far:

We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ assertion that, in essence, the failure to conduct a referendum leaves the annexation subject to being set aside at any time in the future without regard to any time limitation. Cases involving an alleged failure to adhere to a voting requirement during an annexation have generally been found to be subject to a pertinent limitations’ period … . A statute of limitations may apply even when conduct inconsistent with a statute or the state constitution is alleged … . Simply stated, “a [s];tatute of [l];imitations does not have the effect of curing the underlying wrong, but rather extinguishes the right to judicial relief” … . We need not decide the particular limitations’ period for challenging an annexation made without a referendum — whether four months (see CPLR 217), six years (see CPLR 213) or some time in between (see e.g. CPLR 9802). Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood that a challenge to the annexation based upon the failure to conduct a referendum would be viable where, as here, over seven years have passed since the annexation. …

Next, we consider the 2010 development agreement, which plaintiffs contend is void because [the mayor] had a conflict of interest arising from the 2009 acquisition of some project property by himself and his parents (see General Municipal Law § 804). The 2nd Department, in a case affirmed by the Court of Appeals, has held that the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214 (2) applies to such a claim … . The [Mayor’s] deeds had been a matter of public record since 2009, before the 2010 development agreement was executed. Any conflict was known or should have been known as of the execution in 2010 of the development agreement, which was also a public document. This action was not brought until 2014.

Long delays can be relevant to the issue of whether equitable injunctive relief should be granted … . Although plaintiffs allege some unsavory (or worse) conduct by certain people involved directly or indirectly in the project, it is not clear from this record whether they can successfully show that the project defendants engaged in such conduct so as to prevent them from relying on equitable defenses such as laches … . Rural Community Coalition Inc v Village of Bloomingbury, 2014 NY Slip Op 04110, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Lump Sum Settlement with Third Party Barred Transfer of Employer’s Liability for Future Medical Payments to the Special Fund

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Stein, determined that a lump sum payment from a third party, to which the employer agreed in return for the worker’s forebearance re: future indemnity payments by the employer, barred the transfer of the employer’s liability for future medical payments to the Special Fund:

Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, liability for a claim will be transferred to the Special Fund when an application is made to reopen a closed case after a lapse of seven years from the date of the injury and three years from the date of the last payment of compensation … . The issue here distills to when the last payment of compensation was made in light of the settlement agreement between claimant and the employer. …

Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (7), where a case is “disposed of by the payment of a lump sum,” the date of the last payment of compensation is established by calculating the date to which the amount paid in the settlement would have extended had the award of indemnity benefits been made at the maximum compensation rate warranted on the date the lump-sum payment was approved … . Here, the employer entered into an agreement with claimant on December 30, 2008 that permitted claimant to retain the proceeds of the third-party action in exchange for, among other things, his forebearance of future indemnity benefits. In our view, these proceeds constituted a lump-sum payment for purposes of the statute. Contrary to the employer’s contention that the statute only applies where the employer itself makes a lump-sum payment to the claimant, we note that the plain language of the statute indicates that it applies “where the case is disposed of by the payment of a lump sum,” without reference to the source of such payment (Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [7]). Thus, because the settlement agreement effectively “disposed” of the employer’s obligation to pay future indemnity benefits in exchange for claimant’s retention of a lump-sum payment from the third-party action, application of the statute is appropriate to bar transfer of liability for future medical benefits to the Special Fund. Matter of Nicpon v Zelasko Constr Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04102, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

No Need to Be Affiliated with an Authorized Rescue Entity or Volunteer Agency to Qualify for Benefits from World Trade Center Volunteer Fund

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that the claimant, who was not affiliated with any authorized rescue entity or volunteer agency, but who participated in rescue efforts at or near the World Trade Center on September 11 and 12, 2001, was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits:

Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A, which is to be afforded a liberal construction, “was enacted ‘to remove statutory obstacles to timely claims filing and notice for latent conditions resulting from hazardous exposure for those who worked in rescue, recovery or cleanup operations following the World Trade Center September 11, 2001 attack'” …, quoting Senate Mem in Support, 2006 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 1915). A “volunteer” may qualify for coverage under the statute provided he or she tenders to the Board satisfactory evidence that he or she participated in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations at the World Trade Center site (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [1]; [b]; [i]) — a geographical location defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 (2) — between September 11, 2001 and September 12, 2002 and suffers from a “[q];ualifying condition,” including rhinitis and sinusitis (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [3]; [a]), gastroesophageal reflux disease (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [3]; [c]) and anxiety or depression (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [3]; [d]). Here, the Board did not directly address the time, location and activity elements of the statute; rather, the Board denied claimant’s application for workers’ compensation benefits solely because claimant “did not serve under the direction of an authorized rescue entity or volunteer agency” and, hence, “[did]; not meet the definition of [a]; volunteer” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A.

* * * Noticeably absent from both Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A and the commonly understood meaning of the word volunteer is any requirement that such individual “serve under the direction of an authorized rescue entity or volunteer agency.” Accordingly, the Board’s imposition of such a requirement is, to our analysis, contrary to the plain terms of the statute. Matter of Hazan v WTC Volunteer Fund, 2014 NY Slip Op 04103, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy